FOUNDATION

This is a followup on my "Mental Paralysis vs. Desolidification" posting from yesterday... Does your previous response mean that the entangled target could use, say, flight if that power involved no actual use of their muscles. I'm thinking of something like the "Tuning" flight used in the movie "Dark City" where the flight is performed entirely through force of will. For other forms of flight, ones that require the use of wings, or pressing a button on a jet pack, etc. the victim is obviously stuck. If the "force of will" flight is allowed, what about a flight that is activated mentally and is controlled by leaning one direction or another? Could such a person, if mentally paralyzed, activate the flight? If they could, they would presumably not remain in the air for very long seeing as how they would have no control - but it might enable them to come crashing down a couple of inches from where they started.

The FAQ says that Desolidification cannot be used to escape from a "Mental Paralysis" entangle. My question is whether or not the power can be used at all. In other words, if someone is hit with a mental paralysis, can they go desolid in order to prevent their being hit by other attacks (that do not affect targets that are desolid). The target would still be entangled, they'd just be desolid now.

Re: Another "would you allow this in your campaign" question... I agree with your argument. The nature of this power, though, is more like an energy blast that produces effects that resemble that of a Taser (minus the physical effects that you describe). I used "Taser Effect" as the description simply because the power produced effects that were similar to a Taser. The power's delivery mechanism of said attack, though, is entirely different. What I wanted to know is if people thought this power was unbalanced. If the target does not have a particularly high EGO, and the power does indeed prevent the target from doing anything, this entangle could be mighty difficult to break out of without outside help. Without the expensive BOECV advantage, the "Works against EGO, not STR" seems a pretty potent advantage for +1/4. I was just wondering if others felt the same way.

This one deals with an entangle that only goes part way towards being the "Mental Paralysis" power described in page 110 of 5e... •2D6 Entangle “Taser Effect†No damage from attacks + .5 Works on Ego, not Str + .25 Can’t esc. w/teleport + .25 No barriers - .25 The idea behind this power is that it's an electrical shock that short circuits the brain - preventing the target from doing anything until they recover (which is abstracted by their using Ego to break out). As such, it does not have BOECV - since the attack is physical, but does have the "Works against Ego..." advantage as that seems appropriate for the power. For mental paralysis, the book indicated that mental attacks could also be used to break the entangle. Given the SFX of this power, would it be unbalancing to say that the target can use *only* Ego to break out seeing as how the "scrambling" of their brain prevents them from using any other ability? (obviously, this entangle could still be attacked by other people - assuming that they have the appropriate abilities e.g. appropriate mental powers)

As a followup to my previous vehicle/VPP question (the post I made just previous to this one), what about limitations on the powers in the vehicle? I guess what I'm asking is what are the numbers, when putting together a vehicle (out of a VPP) that apply against the VPP's pool limit? It it the active costs of all of the vehicle's powers, the real cost before you divide by five or the real cost after you divide by five?

If you purchase a vehicle through a VPP, does the point cost of the vehicle need to fit into the VPP before or after you divide its cost (of the vehicle) by five?

Seeing as how the rules state that you should never have a framework inside of a framework, does that mean that any vehicle purchased through a VPP cannot have frameworks of any kind? The case in point is a VPP that belongs to a base - allowing the characters to cull together a gadget or three prior to a given adventure.

Re: Would you allow this in your campaign? One point that I missed in my original description of the power was that this was primarily designed to knock down agents - not other supers (at least for the time being).

I'd like some input from any of you willing to provide it. Is the following use of "triple knockback" reasonable? Fifth ed. correctly recommends against allowing anyone to purchase "double knockback" more than once for a given power. The kicker here is that it's for knockdown only. As such, the cost for this advantage has been reduced from the regular "+3/4" to "+1/2" per use. Think the classic Incredible Hulk manuver where he hits the ground and everybody in a given area around him falls down... •5D6 EB “Seismic Slam†Explosion + .5 Triple Knockdown +1 Knockdown only – no KB Personal Immunity + .25 Extra time - Full Phase - .5 Only targets on surface - .5 No Range - .5 Requires both hands - .5 I feel that Double knockdown for this is reasonable - but what about triple knockdown? How would you feel about allowing this into your Champions campaign? I have not had a chance to check out the Ultimate Brick, so for all I know, this is described there.

If you want to make a wall (for a base) resist Teleportation, do you need to add an adequate number of levels of hardened to counter the levels of AP that a Teleportation power has or do you need to use (an adequate number of levels of) "Cannot be Escaped with Teleportation" or can you go with either? "Cannot be Escaped..." is listed in both the Entangle and Teleportation power descriptions. The latter one (5th ed., Page 150) says that it can be applied to walls. As both advantages are the same cost, it seems that if either one can be applied (to stop Teleportation), it seems you get a bigger bang for your buck by going with Hardened since you get the additional advantage of stopping AP damage-causing attacks as well.

Following up on my earlier post ("rounding question") and your response, the rounding description on page 2 of the core rule book uses a single decimal digit of precision. If you're using, say three digits of precision, does that mean that... 10.499 rounds to 10? 10.501 rounds however the player wants it to? 10.599 rounds however the player wants it to? 10.600 rounds to 11?

I looked in the FAQ and found several entries on rounding, but could not find one that quite covers this topic. If you end up with a fractional real cost for a power, what are the guidelines for rounding? examples: 10.4 presumably rounds to 10 10.9 presumably rounds to 11 what about 10.5, 10.51, 10.56 or 10.6? Mathematically, they all round to 11. Is this also true in the hero system?

Alas, the player wants images. He wants the armor to always be active (which kills the "only in hero ID" option) and, though aware of the inherent drawbacks to using images (as it has been previously described), is willing to go with it anyhow.

Clarification: The use of images is intended to conceal all foci (within the "clothes" area of the person) when in use AND when not in use. This includes the obvious images focus itself (5th ed says you can do this, but that others *may* get a +1 (or more) to their perception roll). Obviously, their powers will not be concealed. In other words, the character's "clothes" will still appear to afford the same apparent level of protection as does his armor, he'll still appear to be running really fast if he uses his enhanced running (purchased through his armor), etc. From what I saw in the FAQ, when a character is invisible, obvious foci are invisible as well - unless they use a focus (such as a sword) in an attack (the sword then becomes visible for that phase). So from what it sounds to me like you saying, and given the above clarifications, you don't think that hiding obvious foci behind and image (in this manner) is unreasonable?

This kind of reminds me of Scorpion (I think that was his name) from Mortal Kombat.

The goal here (of using images) was to be able to always wear the armor (and get its benefit) while, at the same time, blending into the background (at least, when people fail their modified perception rolls) when not in "hero mode" - seeing as how his armor would then look like normal clothes. Then, when in "hero mode" (and wanting to be noticed as such) he can turn the images off and hear everyone shout... tada! "It's super dude in armor!" It makes more sense (in the case of this particular character) that his armor is an obvious (as opposed to inobvious) focus. The purpose of the images is to cover up the "obviousness" of the obvious focus - effectively making it an inobvious focus while getting the point benefit of an obvious focus. One of the key points here is that the armor provides several abilities (i.e. multiple powers) - all of which are bought via OIF armor. The Images are bought through a separate OIF - but when the images are on, all of the foci are covered - so none of them are obvious any longer (but are still getting the point benefit of being obvious). My bottom-line questions (question #1 of 2) is whether people think this is an abuse. For those who do think it's an abuse (and I'm *kind of* inclined to think it is), what about people who are invisible and have Obvious foci? They, too, are no longer obvious (except for certain weapons as they are being used in an attack). The point being, (question #2 of 2) if using images to cover all your obvious foci is an abuse, how come using invisibility to cover all your obvious foci is not?

I checked the FAQ and couldn't find anything on this specific case. This is a two-part question. 1) can Images be used "on self"? An example would be to make armor look like normal clothes. Buy the images down to zero END and make it persistant and you have a suite of armor that always looks like regular clothes (just don't look at it too hard, listen closely or try to touch it). The reason I ask this question is that I understand Images is normally supposed to affect a fixed area whose area does not move (even if the image within the area does). In the case of the above-mentioned armor, though, it will continue to be on the same area, but that area itself (the character's body) will move. 2) If this is not allowed, then this part of the question can be ignored. If it *is* allowed, then (using the above armor example), what if the armor is bought as an OIF? Without a perception roll, the armor is not terribly "obvious" anymore. It seems to me that this is the definition of "inobvious" now. The counter-argument, though, it that someone (with OIF armor) who can turn invisible (sight group) for long periods of time (bought to 0 End) still has his OIF armor even though his armor is now anything but obvious.

When a sense group has some senses that are targeting and some that are not, is that sense group a targeting sense group or not? This matters when purchasing invisibility and including said sense group (along with others). An example such a sense group would be a campaign where, within the Radio sense group, "Radar" is considered a targeting sense while "radio perception" is not.

Missile Deflection normally only applies to missiles entering the hex that the deflector is in (unless the "at range" advantage is purchased). What if the person with Missile Deflection also has several levels of growth? In other words, if he now covers several hexes all by himself, can he deflect only one of the hexes of his person (and if so, which one?) or is the missile deflection scaled up to cover the number of hexes that the growth-affected person now fills? If the growth-affected person buy's the "one hex range" version of the "at range" advantage (for his missile deflection), does the missile deflection still only extend to a one hex radius (like for a normal-sized person) or is it scaled to the size of the growth-affected person (seeing as how the growth-affected person's reach and movemet are, as defined in the Growth power, scaled up)?

Can you define what a "missile" is? This has important ramifications when it comes to missile deflection/reflection (see below). Please comment on the following... Part 1... If person "a" throws a rock at person "b", the rock is presumably considered to be a "missile" and can be deflected via missile deflection. If person "a" punches person "b", person "a"'s fist is presumably considered to not be a "missile" and therefore cannot be deflected via missile deflection. Now for some less obvious examples. If person "a" flys/glides/falls into person "b", that is presumably considered a "move through" and therefore cannot be missile deflected. Is this true? If an identical statue of person "a" (same shape, look, mass, etc) flys/flides/falls into person "b", then that is presumably considered a missile attack and can therefore be missile deflected (lets say that a duplicate of the mechanism that enables person "a" to fly/glide is also strapped to the statue). In each of the above cases, lets say that person "b" is unaware of the attack and his missile deflection is uncontrolled and defined in such a way that it will work despite person "b" being unaware of the impending attack. From a physics standpoint, the effect of the above two attacks should be absolutely identical - and yet, one can be missile deflected and one cannot. Part 2... For purposes of missile deflection... Is a ballistic targeted non-explosive rocket considered a missile? Is a remote targeted non-explosive rocket considered a missile? In previous posts, it has been indicated that an unconscious individual is considered a missile if he is thrown at another individual. What if he is dropped from above? What if he is conscious? What if he is conscious and dropped from above? What if he is conscious and jumps from some position that is above the target? What if he is conscious and flys/glides into the target? What if he is *not* conscious and flys/glides into the target (i.e. flight/gliding usable on others is being used)? What if person "a" uses TK to grab person "b" and then use person "b" to hit person "c". Is person "b" considered a deflectable missile in this case? If a conscious person who is thrown or dropped is considered to be a missile, what's the difference between that and a move through (while the person doing the move through is flying/gliding/falling)?

In a previous posting, someone asked if a person, thrown at another person, can be missile deflected by the intended target. The answer was yes (as long as it wasn't something like a "fastball" manuver). What about any of the following scenarios (let me know if I should have broken this up into separate postings)... Person "a" is floating in the air as person "b" jumps from some position above person "a" with the intent of attacking person "a". What if person "b" (the missile) is *falling* towards person "a" (the target) - and person "b" is doing so consciously in order to do a "move through". Can person "a" still missile deflect person "b"? What if person "b" is doing a "move by" instead? What if person "b" wants to "fall" by person "a" and just whack person "a" with a weapon instead of doing a move through/by? What if person "b" is not falling but actually flying/gliding in any of the above scenarios (i.e. the difference being that one form of movement is controlled and and the other is not)? Finally, assuming that the situation is such that person "a" can deflect person "b", what if person "b" also has missile deflection? Can person "b" use his missile deflection to attempt to counteract the missile deflection being used by person "a"? Is it legal to use missile deflection in conjunction with TK? In effect, providing missile deflection at range (see below for a description of said individual)? Assuming this is legal and person "a" has something along these lines, can person "b" attempt to use his missile deflection to counteract person "a"'s ranged missile deflection (since it's now ranged). The idea behind the ranged missile deflection was someone who had all sorts tendrels/pseudo pods coming out of his back. These tendrels were constantly whipping around his body - batting away any ranged attacks that were targeting him. The tendrels are TK with an SE of "tendrels/pseudo pods" and a linked uncontrolled missile deflection that is usable at range. If this is not legal in its current form, what (if anything) needs to be done to make it legal?

Lets say that someone has a 60 Str TK. Can they use the TK to grab one target one one phase, another target on their next phase (while continuing to hold the first one), a third one the phase after that (while holding on to the first two), etc.? If so, does the TK's Str get divided (60 Str TK / 3 targets = an effective 20 Str that each individual target would have try and break out of)? While holding three targets, are they having to pay 3X End? Are there some power advantages that need to be applied to the TK in order to get it to do the "can grab and hold successive targets" thing?

The "not falling down" issue is significant when it comes to the "Instant Awaken" limitation approach. IMHO, adding speed drain to it just makes the whole thing overcomplicated. I still think Yamo's "Orgazmo Ray" comes closest to reproducing the effects (as I said earlier, you'll still need to add AOE Cone and a couple of other hoo-ha's to it to really make it ideal). Besides, I'm not sure if you could carry someone under the effects of IA without waking them up (I believe the first person to die (in the movie) was carried to the balcony of her high-rise appartment and dropped over the edge (after being zapped with a "looker" gun)).

Outstanding! Throw in an AOE Cone and a couple of other hoo-ha's and I think that's got it nailed. Thanks for the suggestion!

yes, but... Edsel, thanks for the response. Something along the "entangle" lines was my original thought too. The problem with this is that entangle really does not produce the same effect. Yes, in both cases (how I described it (i.e. how it is in the movie) and how you described it), I think we have the weapon's limitations nailed down and the effect on the target causing them to be "frozen" in place - but there is a key difference... In your example, the target, after being hit, should be thinking (or perhaps even saying) "Damn, that guy over there shot me with his gun and now I'm stuck - hmmm let me think about what I should do to try and break out - perhaps I should use my mind link or head set to ask for help from one of my team mates". This differs from the movie version where, once hit, the target has been mentally "blissed out". For all intents and purposes, he has been rendered senseless - as if he/she is asleep. That's why entangle (at least by its self), does not quite cut it. It accomplishes the "freeze" effect, but not the associated "blissed out" effect. I don't see linking a flash that affects every sense group (really expensive!) will even do it since the target will still be able to think (albiet while floating in a virtual sensory deprivation tank). It's also why I mused that a faithful reproduction of this weapon may just be infeasible using the Hero game mechanics (since to do it properly probably means the weapon's active cost would be several hundred points).